Subject: Re: Governance and responsibility
From: Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:58:40 -0700

On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 20:26 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Michael Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 2005-09-25 at 18:50 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > hen I say that the OSI doesn't speak for the community, I'm not
> > > speaking for the community, only for myself.  To the extent that I am
> > > part of the community, and to the extent that others in the community
> > > agree with me that the OSI does not speak for us, then the OSI does
> > > not speak for the community.  I don't have to speak for the whole
> > > community to make OSI's claim to speak for the whole community false.
> > 
> > While I am most definitely sympathetic to your arguments for greater
> > transparency and processes for determining a mandate and so forth, I
> > have to say that the above is something of a strawman:
> > 
> > Speak for the whole community != speak for the community (as a whole)
> 
> That is true.  The question is how much of the community the OSI
> speaks for.  The OSI presumably has one opinion.  I have another.  We
> don't know who is right.

Personally, I think that the biggest variable in determining 'how much'
is how you define 'the community'.

I'd venture to guess that for most reasonable definitions, the OSI
speaks for a plurality at the very least, and probably a majority.

A more interesting question would be whether the size of the community
segment the OSI fairly represents has changed over time (especially as
the community as a whole has grown, and as the board makeup has
changed), and in which direction. Right now that is even less knowable,
unfortunately.

- Michael Bernstein